II. The need for protection of the Palestinians under occupation<\/strong><\/p>\nThroughout the period under consideration, the international community recognized the urgent need for international protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation in accordance with the applicable rules and principles of international law and human rights instruments, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. The period began and concluded with a major Palestinian uprising, or intifada, in protest of Israel\u2019s military occupation of the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. These two uprisings were widely regarded as powerful expressions of the Palestinians\u2019 long-frustrated national aspirations and rejection of their legitimate demands, together with their oppression under Israeli occupation. Against the backdrop of the uprising, often violent confrontations and Israel\u2019s excessive use of force as well as violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, numerous efforts were made to provide for the protection and security of the Palestinian civilian population (see also chap. IV below).<\/p>\n
A. <\/strong>First intifada<\/strong>From the beginning of the Palestinian uprising that erupted on 9 December 1987 and lasted until the middle of 1993, now known as the first intifada, the day-to-day life of the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was characterized by confrontation and severe measures and harsh repression by Israel, the occupying Power.\u00a012<\/u>.\u00a0These developments, on full display in the media worldwide, continued to raise awareness within the international community of the plight of the Palestinians living under occupation.<\/p>\nAs a result of the excessive use of force by Israel, the total number of Palestinian deaths by shooting, beating or tear gas rose to approximately 1,240 by August 1993, and the total number injured to an estimated 130,000. Approximately one fourth of the fatalities were children under the age of 16 years (see A\/48\/35, para. 22). Thousands of Palestinians were also detained by the Israeli occupying forces and, in violation of international law, hundreds transferred to prisons in Israel or deported from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Scores of homes were destroyed or sealed with concrete. The educational system came to a halt when schools and universities were closed for extended periods and informal teaching arrangements prohibited. Villages and whole areas were placed under curfew; retail, utility, health, financial and commercial services were curtailed and media and civic organizations outlawed. Tens of thousands of productive trees were uprooted and crops destroyed as collective punishment by the occupying Power.\u00a013<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
On the basis of information and evidence put before it, in 1989 the Special Committee on Israeli Practices noted that the dangerous level of violence and repression in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unprecedented in over 22 years of military occupation. The Special Committee\u2019s reports through 1993 continued to reflect the high level of violence engendered by the uprising and by the attempts by Israel to suppress it by disproportionately harsh and violent military force, as well as collective punishment, including mass deportations of Palestinians.<\/p>\n
The increasing violence, specifically the killing of an Israeli in the \u201cNissanit\u201d settlement in the Gaza Strip and of two Israeli policemen in Israel at the end of March 1993, led the Israeli authorities to impose on 30 March a complete closure of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.14<\/u>\/\u00a0The closure effectively divided the Occupied Palestinian Territory into four distinct areas, namely, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the northern West Bank and the southern West Bank, and created unprecedented hardship for the Palestinian population, the majority of which already lived below the poverty line.\u00a015<\/u>\/\u00a0Later findings of the Special Committee showed that, although the overall level of violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory somewhat declined after the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993, sporadic confrontations were met with harsh repressive measures against the population.\u00a016<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
From the beginning of the first intifada in December 1987, the United Nations, together with numerous intergovernmental organizations, including the European Economic Community, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of African Unity, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and numerous NGOs, expressed concern regarding the grave situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the lack of protection for the Palestinian people.<\/p>\n
The Security Council, however, remained paralyzed. The draft resolution of 9 June 1989 concerning the deportation of Palestinian civilians (S\/20677), was vetoed by the United States, as was the draft resolution of 16 February 1989, in which the Council sought to strongly deplore Israel\u2019s persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially the violation of human rights (S\/20463); and a similar draft resolution of 6 November 1989 (S\/20945\/Rev.1), in which the Council strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices that violated the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territory.<\/p>\n
On 20 May 1990, an Israeli gunman killed 7 Palestinian workers and wounded 11 others at Oyoun Qarra (Rishon LeZion) in Israel; another 17 Palestinians were killed and more than 1,000 wounded by Israeli security forces in the subsequent demonstrations throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory in protests against the incident.\u00a017<\/u>\/\u00a0This incident prompted the Security Council to address the issue of protection. During the debates in the Council that were held in Geneva on 25 and 26 May and in New York on 31 May 1990, nearly every delegation that spoke, including Members of the Council, emphasized the urgent need for protection of Palestinian civilians. On 25 May 1990, PLO Chairman Arafat made a statement before the Council calling for urgent action to provide international protection to the Palestinian people. Nevertheless, a draft resolution (S\/21236) that would have established a commission consisting of three Members of the Council to examine the situation on the ground and recommend ways and means for ensuring the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation was vetoed on 31 May 1990 by the United States\u00a018<\/u>\/\u00a0(see S\/PV.2926).<\/p>\n
In a presidential statement of 19 June 1990, the members of the Security Council strongly deplored an incident that had occurred on 12 June 1990, in which several innocent Palestinian women and children were wounded when an Israeli officer threw a tear gas grenade into an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA clinic near Shati camp in the Gaza Strip. Expressing dismay that the penalty imposed on that officer had been commuted, the members reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, requested the High Contracting Parties to ensure respect for the Convention and called upon Israel to abide by its obligations under the Convention.\u00a019<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
A personal representative of the Secretary-General visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 22 June through 1 July 1990. According to a statement by the Secretary-General issued to the press at Geneva on 4 July, the principal concern conveyed by the Palestinians to the personal representative was their profound feeling of vulnerability resulting from the lack of protection; this fear was expressed by those living in refugee camps and by the residents of towns and villages. The Palestinians were also deeply concerned about their basic human and economic rights. Their grievances were conveyed to Israel, which, as the occupying Power, was urged to take the necessary steps to address them in accordance with its international legal obligations.\u00a020<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
On 20 December 1990, the Security Council, prompted by an outbreak of confrontations and bloodshed in East Jerusalem, adopted resolution 681 (1990) (see also chap. II.B below). That resolution represented a new step by the Council because it entrusted, for the first time, ongoing responsibilities to the Secretary-General with respect to the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation, requesting him to monitor and observe their situation. At the same time, the Council underlined the obligations of the parties chiefly responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for ensuring the protection of the Palestinians, namely Israel, the occupying Power, and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention (see S\/22472).<\/p>\n
The Security Council met in January, March and May of 1991 to discuss the situation in the occupied Arab territories. On 4 January 1991, in a presidential statement (S\/22406), the members of the Council expressed deep concern about and deplored recent acts of violence in the Gaza Strip, especially actions by Israeli security forces against Palestinians, which had led to scores of Palestinian civilian casualties; reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Occupied Palestinian Territory; requested that Israel, as the occupying Power, fully comply with the provisions of the Convention; reaffirmed its resolution 681 (1990) and supported the work of the Secretary-General in implementing that resolution; and, further urged intensified efforts by all who could contribute to reducing conflict and tension in order to achieve peace in the area. On 27 March 1991, in a presidential statement (S\/22408), the members of the Council again expressed grave concern about the continued deterioration of the situation in the occupied Arab territories, and especially about the serious situation resulting from the imposition of curfews by Israel, and deplored the expulsion of four Palestinians (see also A\/46\/652-S\/23225). In May, the Council adopted resolution 694 (1991), in which it deplored the deportation of Palestinians from the occupied territories (see also chap. II.C below).<\/p>\n
As discussed in chapter III below, a major Middle East peace effort began at Madrid in October 1991, in the format of a conference, which for the first time brought together all parties to the conflict. Nevertheless, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory continued to deteriorate, and in January and April 1992, the Security Council was again called upon to address the situation. In January 1992, the Council adopted resolution 726 (1992) on the deportation of Palestinians, and, in April, it expressed its concern over an incident in Rafah in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinians had been killed and many more injured by Israeli forces. In a presidential statement drafted by Palestine with the support of the non-aligned members of the Council (S\/23783), the Council again urged Israel to abide at all times by its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and to respect and to act in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council; and expressed concern that any escalation of violence would have serious implications for the peace process, especially at a time when negotiations to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace were under way in Madrid. Moreover, in accordance with resolution 681 (1990), the members of the Council requested the Secretary-General to use his good offices to address the problems of Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation.\u00a021<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
On 25 January 1993, in connection with the deportation of a large number of Palestinians, the Secretary-General, in paragraph 17 of his report submitted in accordance with resolution 799 (1992) (S\/25149), observed:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe question of the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation has repeatedly been addressed by the Security Council since December 1987. For this reason and in the light of requests conveyed by Palestinian leaders to me as well as to Mr. Jonah and Mr. Gharekhan during their missions to the region, I intend to initiate discussions with the Israeli authorities regarding the establishment of a United Nations monitoring mechanism in the occupied territories, as suggested in resolution 681 (1990). This should have the effect of reassuring Palestinians under Israeli occupation that the international community is not neglecting their need for safety and protection, a need, which must be met regardless of progress in the peace talks.\u201d<\/ul>\nThroughout 1993, the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations and the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People communicated to the Secretary-General their concerns about the escalation of Israeli repression that resulted in many Palestinian casualties and a dangerously deteriorating security situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and appealed urgently and repeatedly to the Council to ensure the protection of Palestinians in accordance with resolution 681(1990).\u00a022<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
The General Assembly had first addressed the grave circumstances in the Occupied Palestinian Territory connected with the first intifada on 3 November 1988, when it adopted resolution 43\/21, condemning Israel\u2019s persistent violation of Palestinian human rights. As stated above, the Security Council remained unable to address the violent repression by Israel during the first intifada,\u00a023<\/u>\/\u00a0although the Assembly repeatedly requested the Council to examine the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and to consider taking measures to protect Palestinian civilians (see resolutions 43\/233, 44\/2, 45\/69, 46\/76 and 47\/64 E. In its resolution 44\/2, the Assembly expressed deep concern at the alarming situation resulting from the continued occupation and persistent policies and practices of Israel against the Palestinian people, and expressed its profound shock at the continued killing and wounding of Palestinian civilians and the ransacking of houses of defenceless civilians in the Palestinian town of Beit Sahour.<\/p>\n
In its resolution 45\/69, the General Assembly expressed its profound shock at the Israeli violence of 8 October 1990 at the Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem, which resulted in the killing and wounding of Palestinian civilians. The Assembly stressed the need to promote international protection to the Palestinian civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, and the need for increased support to, aid for and solidarity with the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation (see chap. II.B below). Also, Guido de Marco, the President of the General Assembly, visited the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Jordan from 2 to 7 January 1991, the first such visit of its kind.\u00a024<\/u>\/\u00a0The President briefed the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at its 176th meeting, held on 22 February 1991, regarding his visit (see A\/45\/1000). In paragraph 6 of its resolution 47\/64 D, the General Assembly also proposed \u201cto place the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, under the supervision of the United Nations for a transitional period or, alternatively, to provide international protection for the Palestinian people there, as part of the peace process\u201d. This proposal, originating in an Arab plan of the early 1980s, was repeatedly reiterated by the Assembly through 1994 (see A\/37\/696-S\/15510, annex; and General Assembly resolutions 43\/176, 44\/40, 45\/68 and 46\/75). In February and March 1994, the need for protection of the Palestinian people came into an even starker focus, following the massacre of Palestinian worshipers by an extremist Israeli settler in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. In March, the Security Council adopted resolution 904 (1994), strongly condemning the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath, and calling for the establishment of a temporary international or foreign presence, which was later established as the Temporary International Presence in Hebron.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, from 1994 to December 2000, in its resolutions on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, the General Assembly has expressed its appreciation for the positive contribution made by the countries that participated in the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (resolutions 49\/36 C; 50\/29 C; 51\/134; 52\/67; 53\/56; 54\/79 and 55\/133, preambular para. 14).<\/p>\n
In 1992, the General Assembly adopted resolution 47\/64 E, in which it condemned the policies and practices of Israel that violated the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; demanded that Israel abide by the Geneva Convention and that the High Contracting Parties to the Convention ensure Israel\u2019s compliance; deplored Israel\u2019s disregard of Security Council resolutions; reaffirmed that Israel\u2019s occupation of Arab territories in no way changes the legal status of those territories; and, requested that the Security Council consider measures to provide protection to Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.<\/p>\n
In view of developments on the ground, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People consistently stressed, over the period under review, in its meetings, reports and communications the need for providing effective protection to Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, focusing, among other things, on the imperative need to end human rights violations and ensure the safety and international protection of Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 681 (1990) (see A\/44\/35, A\/47\/35 and A\/48\/35).<\/p>\n
B. Outbreak of violence in Jerusalem and related Security Council action<\/strong>
\nOn 12 October 1990, in its resolution 672 (1990), the Security Council unanimously expressed alarm at the violence which had occurred on 8 October at the Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places in East Jerusalem occupied and expanded in June 1967,\u00a025<\/u>\/\u00a0resulting in over 20 Palestinian deaths and more than 150 injuries among civilians and innocent worshippers. In the resolution, the Council condemned especially the violence committed by Israeli security forces. To enhance the protection of the Palestinians, the Council called upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Council welcomed the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region and requested that he submit a report containing his findings and conclusions before the end of October 1990. Later in the year, in its resolution 681 (1990), the Security Council for the first time gave ongoing responsibilities to the Secretary-General with respect to the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation and underlined the importance of the obligations of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention with regard to ensuring their protection. This was a further extension of a similar request made by the Council to the Secretary-General earlier in its resolution 605 (1987), in which it requested him, inter alia, to submit recommendations to the Council on ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population under occupation.<\/p>\nOver the decade, various other acute situations in or near East Jerusalem, including the opening of a tunnel under the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1996, the establishment of a settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim in 1997 and the bloody events in the Al-Haram Al-Sharif area in 2000 that would lead to the second intifada were addressed by the international community (see chap. II.H and J below).<\/p>\n
On 14 October 1990, the Israeli Cabinet rejected Security Council resolution 672 (1990) and declared that Israel would not receive the Secretary-General\u2019s delegation. The Secretary-General sought clarification from the Government of Israel as to whether his delegation would not be received by the Government, or would be barred from entry. In a meeting with the Secretary-General on 18 October, the Acting Permanent Representative of Israel repeated that his Government did not wish the mission to come and was prepared to provide the Secretary-General with a copy of a report on the events of 8 October 1990 prepared by the Commission of Investigation, appointed by the Prime Minister of Israel. On 19 October, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council in informal consultations that, in the light of Israel\u2019s opposition, he was not in a position to dispatch a mission to the area; members of the Council encouraged him to continue efforts to send a mission. On 24 October, in its resolution 673 (1990), the Security Council unanimously deplored the refusal of the Government of Israel to receive the Secretary-General\u2019s mission, urged the Government to reconsider its decision and insisted that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) awaiting implementation.<\/p>\n
On 31 October 1990, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council a report in accordance with resolution 672 (1990), along with three addenda (S\/21919 and Corr.1 and Adds. 1-3): a report prepared by B\u2019Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories; a report by Al-Haq: Law in the Service of Man; and a summary of the report of the Commission of Investigation appointed by Israel. A separate Security Council document contained a letter in which Palestine transmitted the findings of the Higher Islamic Council regarding the events of 8 October 1990 at Al-Haram Al-Sharif (A\/45\/703-S\/21926).<\/p>\n
In his report, the Secretary-General, Javier P\u00e9rez de Cu\u00e9llar noted that although he had been unable to secure independent, first-hand information regarding the events of 8 October 1990, widespread coverage by the international press indicated that some 17 to 21 Palestinians were killed and more than 150 wounded by Israeli security forces, with more than 20 Israeli civilians and policemen wounded by Palestinians. While there were conflicting opinions as to what provoked the clashes, observers on the spot, including personnel of ICRC, stated that live ammunition was used against Palestinian civilians. On 9 November 1990, the Security Council watched a bystander\u2019s videotape of the violent clashes that took place in Jerusalem on 8 October, submitted by the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations as evidence that the shooting of Arab worshippers by Israeli forces at the Al-Aqsa Mosque had been unprovoked.<\/p>\n
The Secretary-General recalled that the Security Council, in its resolution 605 (1987), adopted in the earliest days of the first intifada, had requested him to examine the situation in the occupied territories and to submit a report containing recommendations on ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under occupation. On the basis of that mandate, and with the concurrence of the Government of Israel, he had been able to send a mission to the region to prepare the report. The Secretary-General also noted that each of the Security Council resolutions and presidential statements addressing the question of the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories adopted since January 1988 had reaffirmed the applicability to the occupied territories of the Fourth Geneva Convention and had called upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligations under that Convention. Moreover, the Secretary-General pointed out that article 1 of the Convention called upon \u201cThe High Contracting Parties [to] undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.\u201d The Secretary-General added that Israel\u2019s position that it did not accept the de jure applicability of the Convention was neither accepted by ICRC, the guardian of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, nor endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention.<\/p>\n
The Secretary-General concluded his report with the following observation:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
\u201cThe issue before us today is what practical steps can, in fact, be taken by the international community to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians living under Israeli occupation. Clearly, the numerous appeals – whether by the Security Council, by myself as Secretary-General, by individual Member States or by ICRC, which is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions – to the Israeli authorities to abide by their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention have been ineffective. It is evident that for any measure of protection to be ensured, the cooperation of the Israeli authorities is, under the present circumstances, absolutely essential. Nevertheless, given the special responsibility of the High Contracting Parties for ensuring respect for the Convention, the Security Council might wish to call for a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to discuss possible measures that might be taken by them under the Convention.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n
\u201cIt would be misleading to conclude this report – which has focused essentially on the need to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians living under Israeli occupation – without underlining that it is a political conflict that lies at the heart of the tragic events that led to the adoption of Security Council resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). The determination of the Palestinians to persevere with the intifada, is evidence of their rejection of the occupation and their commitment to exercise their legitimate political rights, including self-determination.\u201d<\/ul>\nOn 20 December 1990, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 681 (1990), after weeks of consultations and agreement by the members of the Council that an international conference, at an appropriate time and properly structured, should facilitate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The resolution reads in part as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Security Council<\/em>,<\/p>\n\n- \n
\u201c<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nTaking into consideration<\/em><\/p>\n\n- \n
the statement by the President of the Security Council on 20 December 1990 concerning the method and approach for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, …<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n
\n- \n
\u201c4.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nUrges<\/em><\/p>\n\n- \n
the Government of Israel to accept de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the said Convention; …<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n
\n- \n
\u201c6.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nRequests<\/em><\/p>\n\n- \n
the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to develop further the idea expressed in his report [S\/21919 and Corr.1] of convening a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention …<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n
\n- \n
\u201c7.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nAlso requests<\/em><\/p>\nthe Secretary-General to monitor and observe the situation regarding Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation, making new efforts in this regard on an urgent basis, and to utilize and designate or draw upon the United Nations and other personnel and resources present there, in the area and elsewhere, needed to accomplish this task and to keep the Security Council regularly informed.\u201d<\/ul>\nAs stated above in connection with the first intifada, the resolution entrusted, in that clarity for the first time, ongoing responsibilities to the Secretary-General with respect to the situation of Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation and underlined the obligations of the parties chiefly responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for ensuring their protection, namely Israel, the occupying Power, and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention.\u00a026<\/u>\/\u00a0Later in the decade, prompted by the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly, a large majority of the High Contracting Parties would meet for the first time in the history of the Convention, in order to address the matter of ensuring the enforcement of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (see chap. II.H and chap. III below).<\/p>\n
C. Deportations of Palestinian civilians<\/strong><\/p>\nFrom 1988 to 1993, United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, addressed with urgency Israel\u2019s policy of deporting Palestinian civilians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in violation of international law and with often direct onerous effects on peace efforts such as the bilateral negotiations under way in Washington, D.C., in December 1992 in the context of the Madrid peace conference.\u00a027<\/u>\/\u00a0Israel\u2019s expulsion policy continued after that period in a much attenuated form (see A\/50\/463, paras. 376 and 377; see also chap. II.I and chap. III below).<\/p>\n
In 1988, the Security Council adopted two resolutions on the issue of deportations of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (resolutions 607 (1988) and 608 (1988)). Also, in the presidential statement adopted on 26 August 1988 (S\/20156), the members of the Council expressed profound concern over Israel\u2019s ongoing policy of deporting Palestinian civilians in contravention of Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention, as demonstrated on 17 August 1988, when Israel expelled four Palestinian civilians to Lebanon and declared its decision to expel 40 more. The members of the Council had requested Israel to desist immediately from deporting any Palestinian civilians and to ensure immediately the safe return of those already deported.<\/p>\n
On 9 June 1989, the Council voted on a draft resolution submitted by seven members (S\/20677), which would have strongly deplored Israel\u2019s deportation policies and would have demanded that Israel desist forthwith from deporting Palestinian civilians from the Occupied Territory and ensure the safe and immediate return of those already deported. The draft resolution was vetoed by the United States.<\/p>\n
After Israel had once again, in defiance of United Nations resolutions, deported Palestinian civilians in the summer of 1989, the Security Council, in its resolutions 636 (1989) and 641 (1989), once more called upon Israel to desist from deportations, to ensure the safe and immediate return of those Palestinians it had deported, and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Again, in its resolution 681 (1990), the Council deplored the decision by Israel to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians. Continued Israeli deportations, in defiance of the Council, led to further statements and resolutions: on 27 March 1991, the members of the Council deplored Israel\u2019s decision of 24 March 1991 to expel four Palestinian civilians (S\/22408); on 24 May, the Council adopted resolution 694 (1991), deploring the deportation by Israel of four Palestinians on 18 May 1991.<\/p>\n
Since the beginning of the intifada, Israel had deported at least 66 Palestinians, not including the 12 men mentioned above, in violation of article 49 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and several resolutions of the Security Council. This was documented in a letter dated 6 January 1992, from the Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to the Secretary-General (A\/46\/837-S\/23374). Following statements made by five speakers, including the Observer for Palestine, the Council adopted resolution 726 (1992) in which it unanimously strongly condemned\u00a0<\/em>the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians, the first such condemnation by the Security Council of the occupying Power on the question of deportations, in the context of the fledgling Madrid peace process\u00a021<\/u>\/ (see also chap. III below).<\/p>\nThis was followed months later by the largest deportation by Israel since the 1967 war. On 17 December 1992, Israel deported 415 Palestinian civilians suspected of involvement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad,\u00a028<\/u>\/\u00a0which had claimed responsibility for causing the death of nearly a dozen Israeli soldiers and policemen in the preceding weeks.\u00a029<\/u>\/\u00a0The Palestinians were deported from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, mostly the Gaza Strip, to an area in southern Lebanon between the so-called security zone maintained by Israel and the rest of Lebanon. The Government of Lebanon refused to grant the deportees entry and, as a result, a tent camp was established (see A\/48\/278). This was the largest deportation since the 1967 war.\u00a029<\/u>\/ The very next day, the Security Council adopted resolution 799 (1992), in which the Council, reaffirming previous resolutions concerning Israeli deportations, strongly condemned the actions of Israel, demanded the safe and immediate return of deportees, and requested the Secretary-General \u201cto consider dispatching a representative to the area to follow up with the Government of Israel\u201d.<\/p>\n
In his subsequent report to the Council, dated 25 January 1993 (S\/25149), the Secretary-General noted the continued refusal of Israel to comply with resolution 799 (1992); the Secretary-General elaborated as follows:<\/p>\n
The refusal by Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of deportees as demanded in resolution 799 (1992), in my view, challenges the authority of the Security Council. Additionally, there is a growing perception, throughout the international community, that the Council, by not pressing for Israeli compliance with its resolutions, of which resolution 799 (1992) is only the latest, does not attach equal importance to the implementation of all of its decisions. In these circumstances, I would be failing in my duty if I did not recommend to the Security Council that it should take whatever measures are required to ensure that its unanimous decision, as set out in resolution 799 (1992), is respected.<\/ul>\nOn its part, from 1989 to 1992, the General Assembly, in its annual resolutions on the Palestinian uprising, continued to condemn the violations by Israel of the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and in particular the deportation of Palestinian civilians (see resolutions 44\/2, 45\/69, 46\/76 and 47\/64 E). In its resolution 45\/130, on the importance of the universal right of peoples to self-determination and of the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, the Assembly called upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied Palestinian territories and to release immediately all Palestinian detainees.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in its resolutions on the report of the Special Committee on Israeli Practices (see, e.g., resolutions 44\/48 A and 48\/41 C), the General Assembly from 1989 to 1993 continued to express grave concern over the deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Palestinians and other Arabs from the occupied territories and demanded that Israel facilitate the return of all Palestinians deported from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967.<\/p>\n
In its annual reports to the General Assembly and in other communications during the period from 1989 to 1993, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People consistently protested against, and called for an immediate end to, Israel\u2019s deportation policy. In a statement adopted on 21 January 1993 (A\/47\/874-S\/25136), the Committee strongly condemned the mass deportation of 17 December 1992 by the occupying Power as a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, in view of the lack of action by the Security Council on the Secretary-General\u2019s report of 25 January 1993, submitted in accordance with resolution 799 (1992), and delays in the implementation of the agreement reached in February 1993 between the United States and Israel on the gradual repatriation of the deportees,\u00a030<\/u>\/\u00a0the Bureau of the Committee registered its concern in a meeting with the President of the Security Council on 24 March 1993. The Committee noted that the Group of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, among others, had also condemned and expressed serious concern over repeated Israel\u2019s deportation policy (see A\/48\/35).<\/p>\n
According to a list compiled by PLO, in 1993 there were around 1,800 Palestinians who had been deported by Israel since 1967 (see A\/49\/67, para. 199). During the years under consideration, the Committee has consistently supported the right of return of all those Palestinians deported since 1967.<\/p>\n
D. Massacre of Palestinian worshippers in Hebron<\/strong><\/p>\nOn 25 February 1994, an armed Israeli settler killed 29 Palestinian worshippers at the Ibrahimi Mosque (Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi) in Hebron (Al-Khalil). An outraged international community condemned the massacre in the strongest terms (see A\/49\/35, para. 23).<\/p>\n
In his statement before the Security Council on 2 March 1994, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People strongly condemned the massacre in Hebron and reminded the international community that Israel, as the occupying Power, bore full responsibility for the protection of Palestinians in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Committee fully supported the Palestinian request for an international presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and urged the Council to take measures to disarm the settlers and limit their presence and activities in Palestinian towns and villages.<\/p>\n
On 18 March 1994, following a paragraph-by-paragraph voting procedure, the Security Council adopted resolution 904 (1994) in its entirety, without a vote. The Council, inter alia, strongly condemned the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath; called upon Israel to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, the confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers; called for measures to guarantee the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians throughout the Occupied Territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, as provided for in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed by the Government of Israel and PLO in Washington, D.C., on 13 September 1993.<\/p>\n
Following the adoption of resolution 904 (1994), on 2 May 1994, the Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of a temporary international presence in Hebron, established the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, under the provisions of the agreement reached between Israel and PLO on security arrangements for Hebron on 31 March 1994. At Copenhagen, the Memorandum was signed by representatives of Denmark, Italy and Norway, the contributing countries at the time, and agreed upon by Israel and PLO. The Temporary International Presence in Hebron was set up officially on 8 May, and its main mandate was to assist in promoting stability and restoring normal life in the city of Hebron. As there was no agreement on the extension of the three-month mandate, the Temporary International Presence in Hebron withdrew from the Palestinian city on 8 August 1994 and resumed its work only on 12 May 1996, in accordance with agreements reached under the peace process (see A\/49\/35, para. 23; CERD\/C\/282; and\u00a0www.tiph.org). Despite the positive contribution made by the Temporary International Presence in Hebron \u2212 annually acknowledged by the General Assembly \u2212 the situation in Hebron remained particularly tense and volatile, with Palestinian civilians repeatedly subjected to Israeli settler violence, intimidation and harassment (see A\/50\/35, para. 23).<\/p>\n
E. Extrajudicial killings<\/strong><\/p>\nIsrael\u2019s practice of extrajudicial killings of individual Palestinians was brought to the attention of the international community numerous times during the period under consideration, principally during the two Palestinian uprisings. According to annual United Nations reports, the activity of Israel\u2019s undercover units continued in the Occupied Palestinian Territory after the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993, if generally in a less virulent form (see, e.g., A\/49\/511, para. 713; and A\/50\/463, para. 763; see also chap. II.I below). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, individual Governments, intergovernmental organizations such as the European Union, and NGOs condemned the use of such units and the practice of extrajudicial killings.<\/p>\n
The General Assembly condemned the use of undercover units as death squads (see resolution 47\/70 A). In its resolution 1992\/2, the Commission on Human Rights specifically expressed its deep concern at the contents of the report by the Special Rapporteur (E\/CN.4\/1991\/36), regarding Israel\u2019s practice of summary or arbitrary executions. In a letter to the Secretary-General of 13 July 1993 (A\/48\/263-S\/26078), the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations stated:<\/p>\n
\u201cFollowing up on my letter, dated 6 July 1993 (A\/48\/253-S\/26045), concerning the report by the human rights group Middle East Watch, which affirmed that the Israeli army, through the use of undercover units, is pursuing a policy of summary executions of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory, I should like to bring to your attention the findings of Amnesty International in its 1993 annual report on human rights. Amnesty International reported that, among the many human rights violations committed by Israel, \u201cat least 120 Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli forces, often in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial executions or other unjustifiable killings\u201d. The figure of 120 for the total amount of those killed by undercover units represents one of the more conservative tallies prepared by human rights organizations. Some groups, such as Al-Haq and Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC), have arrived at figures as high as 160 killings, with many of the victims 16 years of age or younger.\u201d<\/ul>\nFrom 1990 to 1993, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People addressed this issue repeatedly (see A\/45\/35, para. 21). In 1993, the Committee reiterated its call upon the Israeli occupying forces to end the shooting of unarmed demonstrators and its undercover activities, which had resulted in summary executions (see A\/48\/35, para. 6).<\/p>\n
This unlawful Israeli practice continued to be used in the mid-1990s, fuelling despair, lawlessness and brinkmanship among Palestinians. Together with the acts of violence against innocent civilians and other terrorist attacks carried out by them, such as those in early 1996 addressed below, Israel\u2019s practice of extrajudicial killings contributed to heightening tension in the Occupied Palestinian Territory instead of reducing the level of violence.\u00a031<\/u>\/\u00a0The issue was again urgently addressed by the international community in the context of the second intifada. According to Israel Radio, broadcasting towards the end of December 2000, Israel\u2019s army had adopted a new tactic for quelling the Palestinian uprising: tracking down and killing Palestinian militants. Quoting a senior Israeli army officer, the broadcast appeared to confirm what Palestinian leaders called a \u201cpolicy of assassination,\u201d as a result of which at least 19 activists reportedly had been killed by that date.\u00a032<\/u>\/\u00a0In a letter dated 10 January 2001, addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council (A\/ES-10\/55-S\/2001\/33), the Permanent Observer of Palestine stated, in part, the following:<\/p>\n\u201cAlthough the Government of Israel maintains that its occupying forces do not shoot at Palestinian civilians unless the lives of soldiers are threatened, the killings of \u2026 Palestinians, as well as many other Palestinian martyrs, prove that this assertion is completely false. Moreover, as noted in my previous letters, Israel, the occupying Power, clearly pursues a policy of assassination of identified Palestinian civilians, a fact stated by several high-ranking Israeli officials. As such, the occupying Power is obviously engaged, inter alia, in the wilful killing of civilians, in grave violation of international law and international humanitarian law.\u201d<\/ul>\nF. Arbitrary detention and imprisonment<\/strong><\/p>\nFrom 1989 to 1992, the General Assembly, in its resolutions under the Special Committee on Israeli Practices, deplored the arbitrary detention or imprisonment by Israel of thousands of Palestinians as a result of their resistance against occupation, and called for their release (see, e.g., resolution 44\/48 D). During the period under review, the Assembly repeatedly called upon Israel to accelerate the release of all remaining Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, in compliance with existing peace agreements (see resolution 48\/41 C and 55\/133; see also chaps. III.E and IV.C below).<\/p>\n
The issue of Palestinian prisoners was of special concern to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In 1994 and 1995, the Committee expressed concern that Israel, the occupying Power, continued to hold thousands of Palestinian prisoners inside Israel, in violation of international law. While noting that a number of Palestinian prisoners had been released in accordance with the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, the Committee also noted that this release was partial and conditional. It called upon Israel to implement the planned releases speedily and to work to ameliorate conditions of detention. The Committee was particularly alarmed by continued reports of systematic ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian detainees by Israeli interrogators (see A\/49\/35, para. 24; and A\/50\/35, para. 25).<\/p>\n
In 1996, the Committee noted that some 3,100 Palestinians remained in Israeli prisons, and that their relatives and ICRC had experienced serious difficulties in visiting them owing to the prolonged closure of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Committee recalled that the bilateral peace agreements provided for the phased release of Palestinian prisoners as an important confidence-building measure, and called upon Israel to release the prisoners in accordance with the agreements. The Committee further reaffirmed that detaining prisoners in the territory of the occupying Power was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and called upon Israel to respect its obligations under the Convention (see A\/51\/35, para. 25).<\/p>\n
The Committee welcomed the release of 30 Palestinian women prisoners in February 1997, as well as 350 prisoners in October 1999, in accordance with the provisions of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. Israel, however, continued to hold hundreds Palestinian prisoners, including children, under administrative detention or in facilities run by the Israeli occupying forces, and through 2000 the Committee continued to call upon Israel to release all Palestinian prisoners, pursuant to the bilateral agreements, and to abide by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Committee was especially alarmed by reports of: detention of Palestinians without charge or trial; torture; overcrowded confinement conditions; solitary confinement as a means of punishment; inadequate medical care, resulting in some instances in the death of prisoners; deprivation of basic facilities, such as a place to practice religion or to study; restricted access to legal counsel; the lack of privacy during legal consultations; and restrictions placed on family visits, which were arbitrarily granted by the prison administration despite the intensive efforts of ICRC to facilitate and arrange such visits (see A\/52\/35, paras. 4 and 23; A\/53\/35, paras. 16 and 21; and A\/55\/35, para. 22).\u00a0<\/sup><\/p>\nMoreover, on the basis of information that the Israeli authorities continued to use psychological and physical torture against Palestinian detainees, resulting in a considerable deterioration of their health, the Committee called upon Israel to respect its obligations under the relevant human rights treaties and the Fourth Geneva Convention (see A\/53\/35, paras. 16 and 21). In 1999, the Committee noted with satisfaction the decision adopted by the High Court of Justice of Israel in September 1999 stipulating that the General Security Service of Israel was not authorized to employ certain investigation and interrogation methods that involved the use of physical pressure against detainees (see A\/54\/35, para. 25).<\/p>\n
G. Closures and curfews<\/strong><\/p>\nSince 1993, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Special Committee on Israeli Practices and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, addressed with concern the use of collective punishment against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, comprising the use of external closures of the Territory; and internal closures through the encirclement or blockade of Palestinian towns and villages; checkpoints and curfews, serving no apparent security purpose. On numerous occasions, Israel was called upon to lift such closures and curfews that would at times fragment the Occupied Palestinian Territory into more than 60 enclaves (see S\/1996\/235 and General Assembly resolutions 48\/41 C and 55\/133).\u00a033<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s closure policy, which was widely regarded as violating the relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, became institutionalized during the period under consideration. This policy intensified in January 1991, during the Gulf War, when Israel cancelled general exit permits for Palestinians. This became established as a policy on 30 March 1993, following attacks by Palestinians against civilians in Israel and settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.\u00a034<\/u>\/\u00a0It was furthered by the fragmentation of the areas under Palestinian Authority control, established as a result of the Oslo agreements.\u00a035<\/u>\/\u00a0Despite the massive human rights violations being committed, Israel maintained, including before the Security Council, that its closure policy was not a form of collective punishment against the Palestinian population, but rather a preventive measure to enhance security in Israel (see S\/PV.3652).<\/p>\n
Over the years, numerous reports have provided information on the punitive and debilitating aspects of this policy, in particular the detrimental impact on Palestinian workers and nearly 120,000 families.\u00a036<\/u>\/\u00a0According to media and expert reports in that period, Israel\u2019s blockade, when fully in place, cost the Occupied Palestinian Territory an estimated $7-11 million in lost GDP per day. Internal closures, which restricted mobility through hundreds of checkpoints and curfews, contributed to increased unemployment and other material losses; limited access to urgently needed public services; and, caused tremendous personal hardship for the Palestinian population. Israel\u2019s border closure policy resulted in an average loss of about 20 per cent of Palestinians\u2019 working days in Israel for the period from 1993 to 2000, with peaks in 1995, 1996 and the last quarter of 2000, as well as significant losses in Palestinian external trade and foreign investment in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.\u00a037<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
The Security Council, at an urgent meeting held on 15 April 1996 to consider the serious situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from Israel\u2019s closure policies, concluded its general debate the same day without deciding on any specific measures (see S\/PV.3652). Prior to the Security Council meeting, Palestinian Authority President Arafat, in his letter of 29 March 1996 addressed to the Secretary-General (A\/50\/916-S\/1996\/233), stated:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe general security blockade the Israeli Government has imposed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, its reoccupation of areas from which Israeli forces had previously been withdrawn and its failure to withdraw from the city of Hebron in accordance with the timetable agreed upon at Taba and Washington are in flagrant violation of all international covenants, conventions and customs. We consider such blockade and closure as tantamount to the declaration of a state of war against the Palestinian people, a people that have chosen the road of peace but that for more than a month have been subjected to the worst and most unjust form of collective punishment, to say nothing of the starvation of children, women and the elderly and contempt for basic rights that should be respected in the same manner as human rights in all countries of the world.\u201d<\/ul>\nThe Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in its reports and communications, spearheaded efforts to draw attention to the debilitating effects of closures on the Palestinian people. For instance, in his letter of 28 May 1993 addressed to the Secretary-General (A\/47\/959-S\/25862), the Chairman of the Committee drew attention to the deteriorating situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a result of the prolonged closure and isolation of the Territory by Israel in the following terms:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
\u201cAccording to a report published recently by the Jerusalem-based Palestine Human Rights Information Centre, Israel\u2019s prolonged and indefinite closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the isolation of East Jerusalem since 30 March has been \u2018the most damaging and disruptive policy of the occupying Power on the daily lives of the Palestinian people under occupation\u2019. This policy of collective punishment has, according to the same report, \u2018restricted the movement of millions of Palestinians and deprived them of access to health-care facilities, food and medical supplies, employment and education and places of worship in Jerusalem.\u2019<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n
\u201cOn 21 April, the New York-based human rights organization Middle East Watch expressed deep concern at the hardships caused by the closure of the territories, which include the abrupt loss of income for some 100,000 Palestinians who were employed in Israel and East Jerusalem; the lack of access to hospitals, mosques, churches, schools, banks and so on; and the fragmentation of the occupied territories into four sectors that are inaccessible to one another without permits that are hard to obtain.\u201d<\/ul>\nThe following year, the Committee noted with concern that the continuation by the Government of Israel of its policy of closures of the city of Jerusalem and of the Gaza Strip had caused a dramatic increase in tensions (see A\/49\/35, para. 25). In 1994\/1995, the Committee again reported on the devastating effect of the closures on the overall livelihood of the Palestinian population in an economy much intertwined with that of Israel, as well as on Palestinian education and health. The closures also negatively affected the internal movement of goods and services between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in particular agricultural products, which are a main source of income for thousands of Palestinian households, negatively impacting the Palestinian economy (see A\/50\/35, para. 24).<\/p>\n
In 1996, the Committee noted with grave concern the exacerbation of the situation on the ground as a result of Israeli measures in the wake of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians in February and March. The prolonged and at times complete closure of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem further stifled the Palestinian economy and caused immense suffering and hardship for the civilian population. Moreover, according to a report prepared by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSCO, the Palestinian economy had lost $6 billion from 1992 to 1996, mostly owing to Israeli closures of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which prevented Palestinian workers from reaching jobs in Israel; some 51,000 Palestinians had been licensed to work in Israel each day until 30 July 1997. The closures resulted in a 36 per cent drop in per capita gross national product, from $2,700 in 1992 to $1,700 in 1996 (see A\/52\/35, paras. 26 and 27).<\/p>\n
The imposition on 25 February 1996 of the closure of areas under Palestinian jurisdiction fragmented the territory into many small enclaves isolated from each other and from the outside world. It was reported that this closure was the strictest ever since the beginning of the occupation in 1967 (see A\/51\/35, paras. 23, 26, 43 and 44). During 1996\/1997, the Committee found that Israel continued arbitrarily to impose closures in response to its alleged security needs.<\/p>\n
The Committee expressed grave concern at the imposition by Israel of a blockade of the West Bank and Gaza Strip following the suicide bombing in West Jerusalem on 30 July 1997. The Bureau of the Committee unreservedly condemned all acts of violence against defenceless civilians. The Bureau, in a statement issued to the press on 6 August 1997 (GA\/PAL\/766), also stated that harsh retaliatory measures on the part of the Israeli Government would dangerously exacerbate the state of the Palestinian economy and result in greater hardship and despair among the Palestinian population. The Committee also reiterated its position that the practice of closures was in direct contravention to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention (see A\/52\/35, para. 28). Nevertheless, Israel reimposed a closure following another suicide operation in West Jerusalem on 4 September 1997. The following year, the Committee observed with great concern that the Palestinian economy continued to suffer owing to the prolonged closures of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the resulting fragmentation of the Territory (see A\/53\/35, para. 22).<\/p>\n
According to the Secretary-General\u2019s report on assistance to the Palestinian people, in 1998 fewer comprehensive closures were imposed on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Such closures still affected 5.2 per cent of working days in 1998 (see A\/54\/134-S\/1998\/85, para. 11; and A\/54\/325, para. 89).<\/p>\n
In September 2000, with the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel reverted to an intensified comprehensive closure policy. As a result, the total loss in Palestinian gross national income for the first 15 months of the intifada was estimated by the World Bank at $2.4 billion.\u00a038<\/u>\/\u00a0According to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSCO report of 17 February 2001, during the 123-day period from 1 October 2000 to 31 January 2001, the Israeli-Palestinian border used by Palestinian labourers to work in Israel and trade flows was closed for 93 days or 75.6 per cent of the time. Internal movement restrictions and internal closures, partial or severe, were in place 100 per cent of the time in the West Bank and 89 per cent of the time in the Gaza Strip. The international border crossings to Jordan (from the West Bank) and to Egypt (from the Gaza Strip) were closed for 29 per cent and 50 per cent of the time, respectively.<\/p>\n
H<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \n
.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nSettlement activities, including at Jabal Abu Ghneim<\/strong>Throughout the period under consideration, Israel accelerated its illegal settlement activities, construction of bypass road networks and expropriation of Palestinian land. This further hemmed in the Palestinian civilian population and related infrastructure and caused serious concern within the international community at a time when peace efforts were expected to resolve such major issues as the settlements, considered illegal under international law.\u00a039<\/u>\/\u00a0Israel\u2019s settlement activities throughout the 1990s resulted in the doubling of the number of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; a one-third increase in Israeli settlers in expanded East Jerusalem; the establishment of new settlements and expansion of existing settlements; and, the creation of so-called \u201csettlement outposts\u201d.\u00a040<\/u>\/\u00a0By the end of 2000, the Israeli settler population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had exceeded 200,000 persons, with an additional 200,000 Israeli settlers in Occupied East Jerusalem.\u00a041<\/u>\/<\/p>\nBy the mid-1990s, it had become evident that land confiscation and settlement expansion were taking place at a much accelerated pace, in particular in and around occupied East Jerusalem (see A\/50\/35, paras. 22 and 32; and A\/49\/831-S\/1995\/50). The General Assembly reiterated numerous times its long-standing position that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, were illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. In its resolution 51\/133, the Assembly expressed grave concern over the decision of the Government of Israel to resume settlement activities in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties. Similarly, in the context of the peace process negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum in 1999, concern over increased settlement activity was clearly expressed by the United States and the European Union.\u00a042<\/u>\/\u00a0Both the Security Council and the General Assembly also called upon Israel effectively to prevent acts of violence by Israeli settlers. By the mid-1990s, it had become evident that land confiscation and settlement expansion were taking place at a much accelerated pace, in particular in and around occupied East Jerusalem (ibid.). On 15 March 1990, in response to a request by the Soviet Union, the Security Council considered \u201cunlawful Israeli moves to settle the occupied territories.\u201d The request, contained in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 12 February 1990 (S\/21139), stated that Israeli settlement activities ran counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which precluded any changes in the demographic composition of the occupied territories, and obstructed the Middle East peace efforts.\u00a043<\/u>\/\u00a0During March and May 1990, the Council held six meetings on the settlements issue, but adjourned on 3 May without taking any action.\u00a044<\/u>\/<\/p>\n
The Council again discussed Israeli settlements at an urgent meeting on 28 February 1995. In his statement on behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Chairman stated that Israel\u2019s continued policy of establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory was a direct and serious contravention of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a violation of Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980). The Chairman noted that these developments<\/p>\n
came at a time when the implementation of the second stage of the Declaration of Principles, including the redeployment of the Israeli forces from populated areas in the West Bank and the election of the Palestinian Council, had been delayed for seven months. The Security Council concluded its debate the same day without adopting any specific measures (see A\/50\/35, paras. 22 and 30-40).<\/p>\n
Between 12 and 17 May 1995, the Council again met to discuss the issue, particularly Israeli plans to confiscate Palestinian land in the area of East Jerusalem. On 17 May 1995, a draft resolution (S\/1995\/394) was submitted to the Council, calling upon Israel to rescind the expropriation orders and to refrain from such actions in the future, and expressing full support for the Middle East peace process and its achievements, including the Declaration of Principles and subsequent implementation agreements. The resolution was vetoed by the United States (see S\/PV.3538).<\/p>\n
The following year, on 26 September 1996, the Committee noted with alarm that the Israeli authorities, in violation of Israel\u2019s obligations under international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions, had opened an entrance to a tunnel in the vicinity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif in occupied East Jerusalem. This action triggered unrest and demonstrations among the Palestinians. In accordance with the signed agreements, questions centring on Jerusalem were considered to be part of the final status negotiation issues. The Committee expressed grave concern over the shooting of Palestinians demonstrating against the Israeli action and the resulting escalation of violence, resulting in the deaths of 40 Palestinians and 11 Israelis (see A\/51\/418-S\/1996\/795). An Israeli expert analyst referred to the three days of protests, clashes and bloodshed as the \u201ctunnel uprising\u201d. In his view, the uprising together with a \u201cbroad national consensus\u201d in the Knesset clearly favouring the continuation of the peace efforts under way as well as the active involvement by the United States at the highest level, led the Government of Prime Minister Netanyahu to yield some ground to the Palestinians in negotiations on Hebron, if only to adopt subsequently a \u201cconfrontational line on Jerusalem\u201d\u00a045<\/u>\/\u00a0(see chap. III.E below).<\/p>\n
For its part, the Security Council met on 27 and 28 September 1996 to address recent developments, in particular the opening by Israel of a tunnel under the Western Wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem and subsequent unrest and bloodshed (see S\/1996\/790). Some 50 high-level speakers addressed the Council. At the end of the debate, the Council adopted resolution 1073 on 28 September 1996, with 14 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention (United States). The resolution called for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts that had aggravated the situation and had negative implications for the Middle East peace process, and for the immediate resumption of negotiations on the agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements. Expressing its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians, the Security Council also called for \u201cthe safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured\u201d (see focus and chap. III below).<\/p>\n
\n\n\nFocus: Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the<\/strong>Palestinian People alarmed over the opening of a tunnel under the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1996<\/strong><\/p>\nOn 26 September, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in a letter addressed to the Secretary-General, expressed great anxiety at the violence that resulted from Israel\u2019s decision to open a new entrance to an archaeological tunnel in East Jerusalem, which runs under Arab property along the western wall of the Al-Haram Al-Sharif, the third most important site of Islam (A\/51\/418-S\/1996\/795; see also A\/51\/35, para. 33; A\/51\/416-S\/1996\/793; and A\/51\/400-S\/1996\/779). He continued:<\/p>\n- \n
\u201cAccording to reports in the media, protest demonstrations by Palestinians were met with live ammunition, rubber bullets and tear gas by Israeli troops. Clashes have taken place in the West Bank towns of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Halhoul near Hebron, Jenin, and Qalqilya, as well as in the Gaza Strip. There have been reports that Israeli troops entered areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and that gunfire was exchanged with Palestinian policemen. The latest press dispatches indicate that 40 Palestinians and 11 Israelis have been killed, and several hundred have been injured, the highest toll since the intifada. \u201d<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nIn response to Israel\u2019s decision in February 1997 to begin construction of the \u201cHar Homa\u201d settlement in the Jabal Abu Ghneim area south of occupied East Jerusalem on the road to Bethlehem, the Council met, on 5 March 1997, to consider \u201cthe situation in the occupied Arab territories\u201d, in particular Israel\u2019s decision of 26 February to begin construction of a settlement in the Jabal Abu Ghneim area south of occupied East Jerusalem. In a letter dated 28 February addressed to the Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council, the Chairman of the Committee deplored Israel\u2019s decision to build the new settlement, in contravention of international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly (A\/51\/812-S\/1997\/172). The letter continued:<\/p>\n \n- \n
\u201cThe Committee reaffirms that, in accordance with Security Council resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 and other resolutions, all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and must be rescinded. The Council also called upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe Committee considers that the growing expansion and consolidation of settlements create facts on the ground inconsistent with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, which the current peace process seeks to implement. They seriously undermine the agreements reached between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and jeopardize the much-needed process of confidence building between the parties.\u201d<\/ul>\nThe Chairman of the Committee participated in the Security Council debate on this issue on 5 March 1997, seeking to annul Israel\u2019s decision (see S\/PV.3745).<\/p>\n After the debate on 7 March 1997, the Security Council failed to adopt the draft resolution (see S\/1997\/199) sponsored by France, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, by a vote of 14 in favour to 1 against (United States). Under the draft resolution, had it been adopted, the Council would have called upon Israel to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which altered the facts on the ground, pre-empted final status negotiations, and had negative implications for the Middle East peace process, and to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It also would have called upon all parties to continue, in the interests of peace and security, their negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached.<\/p>\n After the urgent meeting of the General Assembly held on 12 March 1997, the Security Council reconvened to address again the crisis in Jabal Abu Ghneim on 21 March 1997 (S\/PV.3756). The resulting draft resolution (S\/1997\/241), if adopted, would have demanded that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, as well as all other Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The United States again exercised its veto power. Thirteen members of the Council voted in favour, with one abstention (Costa Rica).<\/p>\n In view of two consecutive negative votes by the United States, which prevented the Security Council from acting, the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations stated that he would take the issue before an emergency meeting of the General Assembly (see S\/PV.3747). Thus, following the required procedural measures, the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly convened in April 1997 to address \u201cillegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory\u201d.<\/p>\n The Security Council also held two meetings on 30 June 1998 following Israel\u2019s decision to expand the boundaries of Jerusalem westwards and create an umbrella municipality that would include a number of settlements in the West Bank (see SC\/6626). In the debate, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expressed the hope that the Council would take timely measures, with the support of the sponsors of the peace process, to put an end to the unilateral decisions concerning control over the Holy City of Jerusalem, which should remain the living symbol of peaceful coexistence among religions and peoples that are different yet complementary (see S\/PV.3900 (resumption)).<\/p>\n In a statement issued by its President on 13 July 1998 (S\/PRST\/1998\/21), the Security Council recognized the importance and sensitivity of the issue of Jerusalem to all parties; expressed its support for the decision of PLO and the Government of Israel, in accordance with the Declaration of Principles, to cover the issue of Jerusalem in permanent status negotiations; and, called upon the parties to avoid actions which might prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. The Council also stated that it considered Israel\u2019s decision to broaden the jurisdiction and planning boundaries of Jerusalem a serious and damaging development, and called upon Israel not to proceed with that decision, not to take any other steps which would prejudice the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, and to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in view of the situation on the ground and the inability of the Security Council to act on 7 March 1997, the General Assembly held an urgent meeting on 12 March, at the request of the Group of Arab States and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. On 13 March 1997, the Assembly adopted, by 130 votes in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, resolution 51\/223 entitled \u201cIsraeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular in occupied East Jerusalem.\u201d In the resolution, based on the aforementioned Security Council draft resolution vetoed on 7 March, the Assembly expressed deep concern at Israel\u2019s decision to initiate new settlement activities in the Jabal Abu Ghneim area in East Jerusalem; called upon Israel to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which altered the facts on the ground, pre-empting the final status negotiations and had negative implications for the Middle East peace process; and, to abide scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the Assembly called upon all parties to continue their negotiations within the Middle East peace process.<\/p>\n Following the aforementioned veto in the Security Council on 21 March 1997, the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly \u2013 the first in 15 years \u2013convened on 24 and 25 April 1997 to consider the item entitled \u201cIllegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,\u201d in accordance with the provisions of the \u201cUniting for Peace\u201d resolution (General Assembly resolution 377(V) A). During the debate, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People condemned any resort to violence, in particular against civilians, and recalled that the peace process had made progress because both parties accepted the principles of land for peace and a negotiated solution, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) (see A\/ES-10\/PV.1). On 25 April, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/2, by a recorded vote of 134 votes in favour to 3 against, with 11 abstentions.<\/p>\n In the resolution, the Assembly condemned the construction by Israel of a new settlement in Jabal Abu Ghneim; reaffirmed that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel that had altered the character, legal status and demographic composition of Jerusalem are null and void and have no validity whatsoever; reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 were illegal and an obstacle to peace; demanded immediate and full cessation of the construction in Jabal Abu Ghneim and of all other Israeli settlement activities, as well as of all illegal measures and actions in Jerusalem; and called for the cessation of all forms of assistance and support for illegal Israeli activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, in particular settlement activities.<\/p>\n The Assembly also requested the Secretary-General, who subsequently had intended to dispatch a special envoy to the area, to report on the implementation of this resolution within two months of its adoption. Owing to the restrictions imposed by Israel on the scope of the envisaged mission, which were not acceptable to the United Nations, it had not been possible to dispatch the Special Envoy in conditions under which he could discharge the mandate entrusted to the Secretary-General by the Assembly in a fully satisfactory manner. Therefore, he based the substantive portion of his report on reliable sources available to the United Nations at Headquarters and in the field (see A\/ES-10\/6-S\/1997\/494, paras. 1-14).<\/p>\n Following the submission by the Secretary-General of the report requested under General Assembly resolution ES-10\/2, the tenth emergency special session resumed for the first time on 15 July 1997. At the end of the debate the same day, the Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/3, by a recorded vote of 131 votes in favour to 3 against, with 14 abstentions. In the resolution, the Assembly reiterated its demand for the immediate and full cessation of the construction of a new settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim, and demanded that Israel cease and reverse all actions taken illegally, in contravention of international law, against Palestinian Jerusalemites. It demanded that Israel make available to Member States the necessary information about goods produced or manufactured in the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. It also recommended that the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention convene a conference on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect, in accordance with common article 1, and requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the matter within three months.<\/p>\n Following the issuance of the reports of the Secretary-General, pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10\/3 (A\/ES-10\/16-S\/1997\/798 and Add.1),\u00a0<\/sup>the emergency special session was reconvened for the second time on 13 November 1997.\u00a046<\/u>\/\u00a0During the debate, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People made a statement in which he called upon the Assembly to express the position and will of the international community in a clear and forthright manner (A\/ES-10\/PV.6). The Permanent representative of the Russian Federation said that his country deeply regretted that Israel was not implementing the decisions, made in April and July at earlier stages of the emergency special session, on putting an end to the settlement activities in East Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories. The Russian Federation opposed any unilateral actions negatively affecting the negotiating process. The representative once again called upon Israel to halt the construction of new settlements and immediately to start a full-scale practical implementation of the Palestinian-Israeli agreements. Israeli security concerns should, of course, be duly taken into account.<\/p>\nThe representative of South Africa stated that Israel\u2019s flagrant violation of the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions could not be allowed to continue with impunity. South Africa would vote in favour of the resolution because it sent a clear message to the Government of Israel that the international community was determined to put the peace process firmly back on track and usher in a new era free of conflict, tensions and violence in the Middle East.<\/p>\n The representative of Canada remarked that with regard to operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the draft resolution, Canadian policy was that the Fourth Geneva Convention did apply to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem. As a High Contracting Party, Canada\u2019s decision about the merits of convening the conference called for in operative paragraph 4 would be made after a full examination of the necessity, possible outcome and impact on the peace process of such a conference. On 13 November 1997, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/4, by a recorded vote of 139 to 3, with 13 abstentions.<\/p>\n In the resolution, the Assembly condemned the failure of the Government of Israel to comply with the provisions of the two previous resolutions; reiterated its recommendation for the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention; recommended to the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to undertake the necessary steps, including the convening of a meeting of experts, as soon as possible and with a target date not later than the end of February 1998; and called for renewing momentum into the stalled Middle East peace process by implementing the agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and upholding the principle of land for peace.<\/p>\n The tenth emergency special session was reconvened for the third time, on 17 March 1998.\u00a047<\/u>\/\u00a0<\/sup>The Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People took part in the debate among over 120 other delegations and made a statement in which he called upon the Government of Israel to comply with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the recommendations of the General Assembly, and to cooperate fully in the preparatory work for the meeting of experts and the proposed conference of High Contracting Parties (see A\/ES-10\/PV.8).<\/p>\nAt the end of the debate, on 17 March, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/5, by a recorded vote of 120 to 3, with 5 abstentions, in which it reiterated its condemnation of Israel\u2019s failure to comply with the provisions of previous resolutions; reiterated all of the demands made in those resolutions; reiterated once again its recommendation concerning the convening of a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its recommendation to the Government of Switzerland to undertake the necessary preparatory steps for such a conference; and extended the target date for the convening of the meeting of experts until the end of April 1998.<\/p>\n The emergency special session was resumed on 5 February 1999, for the fourth time. The Chairman of the Committee made a statement in which he reviewed the situation on the ground, as well as in the peace process. He expressed support for, and stressed the crucial importance of, convening a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (see A\/ES-10\/PV.10). On 9 February 1999, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/6, by a recorded vote of 115 to 2, with 5 abstentions. In the resolution, the Assembly condemned Israel\u2019s refusal to comply with the provisions of earlier resolutions, and reiterated those provisions; expressed grave concern at the adoption by the Knesset of the law dated 26 January 1999 and the legislation dated 27 January 1999, which extended Israeli law over settlements in the West Bank and Gaza; and, recommended that the High Contracting Parties convene a conference on 15 July 1999 at the United Nations Office at Geneva on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Assembly expressed confidence that Palestine, as a party directly concerned, would participate in the conference.<\/p>\n The Conference of the High Contracting Parties, the first of its kind in the history of the Convention, was held at Geneva on 15 July 1999, as recommended by the General Assembly at its tenth emergency special session and was attended by 103 countries. The participants reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and reiterated the need for full respect there for the provisions of the Convention. In the statement issued by the Conference at its adjournment, the participating High Contracting Parties stated that it would convene again in the light of consultations on the development of the humanitarian situation in the field. Reconvening the Conference remained under consideration in 2000, as the situation on the ground did not improve.<\/p>\n Provocations and illegal actions by Israel, the occupying Power, continued and intensified. On the heels of the Conference, Israel announced that it would allow 27 of 31 settler hilltops encampments, or \u201coutposts\u201d, which were placed near existing settlements since the signing of the Wye River Memorandum, to remain intact (see A\/53\/1032-S\/1999\/854). According to a press report, an Israeli security establishment study had concluded that at least 10 of 40 settlement \u201coutposts\u201d established in the West Bank after the signing of the Memorandum were \u201cclearly illegal\u201d.\u00a048<\/u>\/\u00a0In other worrisome developments on the ground, Israeli militant settlers, on 6 October 1998, laid the cornerstone for a new housing project in the settlement of \u201cTel Rumeida\u201d situated in the heart of Hebron, where the Government of Israel had agreed to build permanent structures to replace trailer homes. On the same day, Prime Minister Netanyahu attended a ceremony to mark the official redesignation of the West Bank settlement of \u201cAriel\u201d into a city.\u00a049<\/u>\/<\/p>\n The fifth resumption of the tenth emergency special session took place after the onset of the second intifada that had erupted in September 2000. On 20 October 2000, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/7, which will be more fully addressed below. In the resolution, the Assembly, inter alia, called upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure respect for the Convention, in accordance with the statement adopted in Geneva on 15 July 1999.<\/p>\n The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reiterated over the years its concern over the provocative and often violent actions of extremist settlers occupying Palestinian land, erecting makeshift houses and other structures aiming to colonize the Occupied Palestinian Territory, engaging in violent confrontations with Palestinians, and to express their opposition to the peace process. During 1999 and 2000, settlers reportedly were collecting considerable donations in Israel and abroad to purchase special military and rescue equipment. According to the \u201cCouncil of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza\u201d, the equipment was purchased in full coordination with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including the Regional Defence Officer in the IDF Central Command. In this regard, the Committee was alarmed by reports of increased settler activity, especially since the Camp David peace summit held earlier in 2000, including a noticeable increase in the number of settlers with IDF-issued weapons and settlement fortification works in the vicinity of Hebron and Nablus, in particular (see A\/55\/35, para. 20).<\/p>\n Moreover, in its annual report issued in 2000, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reaffirmed that the policy of confiscation of Palestinian land, demolition of houses and other Palestinian property, and construction of settlements constituted a serious violation of international law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Committee was particularly appalled by the intensified construction at the Jabal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem (ibid., para. 19).
\nI<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- \n
.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nHuman rights situation<\/strong>
\nDuring the period under consideration, the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory seriously deteriorated as a result of the increasingly repressive measures taken by Israel against the Palestinian civilian population. Steadily, a climate of diminishing trust, growing Israeli military operations, including reoccupation of Palestinian areas previously redeployed from, and acts of violence against civilians such as indiscriminate bombings emerged. Human rights violations were particularly egregious during the two major Palestinian uprisings that, respectively, were under way at the beginning of the period under consideration, until 1993, and the end, starting on 28 September 2000. In its \u201cCountry reports on human rights practices \u2013 2000\u201d, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour in February 2001, the United States Department of State concluded that Israel\u2019s overall human rights record in the occupied territories was poor.<\/p>\nUnited Nations resolutions and reports continued to reflect the view that occupation itself was a violation of human rights, impeding the Palestinian people\u2019s right to self-determination and obstructing efforts to achieve sustainable development and a sound economic environment.\u00a050<\/u>\/\u00a0The Assembly repeatedly determined that Israel\u2019s violations constituted a serious obstacle to the efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East (see resolutions 44\/48 A and C, 47\/70 C and 55\/133).\u00a0<\/sup>As mentioned above, since December 1996, the General Assembly also has expressed in annual resolutions entitled \u201cReport of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories\u201d grave concern over Israel\u2019s continuation of settlement activities in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties (see resolutions 51\/133, 52\/66, 53\/55, 54\/78 and 55\/132).<\/p>\nOver the years, the Security Council and the General Assembly have each responded to particularly grave violations of human rights of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation, in particular deportations, settler violence such as the massacre at Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi in Hebron and accelerated settlement activity, as well as Israeli actions against Palestinian civilians and civilian property during the two Palestinian uprisings.<\/p>\n Despite tangible progress on the ground following the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993, Israel\u2019s human rights violations persisted in many ways, and were detailed in reports prepared by the United Nations, Governments and human rights groups.\u00a051<\/u>\/\u00a0Reported violations included: the killing and wounding of Palestinians; ill treatment and torture, including of children and minors; deportation and denial of the right to return; detention without trial; collective punishment and mass arrests; interference with the right to peaceful assembly and association, of the right to a fair trial, of the freedoms of speech, the press, expression and worship, and of the right not to be subjected to discrimination as to race, sex, language, religion, political opinion or other status; demolition and sealing of houses; uprooting of trees; transformation of the Palestinian landscape and pillage of historical, cultural and religious sites, especially in Jerusalem; interference with the system of education and the economic and social development of the Palestinian people; as well as the confiscation of land, construction of \u201cbypass roads\u201d\u00a052<\/u>\/\u00a0for illegal construction and expansion of settlements and related infrastructure.<\/p>\n At the United Nations, responsibility for examining the human rights situation in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967 continued to rest primarily with the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, established by the General Assembly in 1968 for this purpose. Whereas the General Assembly continued to demand that Israel cooperate with the Special Committee, Israel refused to recognize the mandate of the Special Committee and extend any cooperation. It refused to give the Special Committee access to any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, not even the Gaza Strip or Jericho, where the Special Committee had hoped to visit in 1994, following the signing of the agreement between PLO and Israel on these areas (see, e.g., A\/49\/511, paras. 687 and 688). Since 1993, for much of the period under review, the Special Committee has issued annual as well as periodic reports and continued to make recommendations to help safeguard the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.<\/p>\n The General Assembly consistently requested the Special Committee to continue its work and expressed the hope that, in the light of the positive political developments that began in 1993, Israel\u2019s policies and practices, which violated the human rights of Palestinians and other Arabs, would be brought to an immediate end (see resolution 48\/41 A). In its most recent resolution on the work of the Special Committee during the period under consideration, in 2000, the Assembly commended the Committee for its efforts, demanded that Israel cooperate with it, and requested the Special Committee to continue its work \u201cpending complete termination of the Israeli occupation\u201d (see resolution 55\/130).<\/p>\n The Special Committee concluded repeatedly during the period under consideration that Israel was violating the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Conventions and relevant United Nations resolutions. Until the early 1990s, in the view of the Special Committee, the persistent violation of human rights derived from the very fact of military occupation and Israel\u2019s policies of colonization and annexation (see A\/44\/559, A\/45\/576 and resolution 47\/70 A). Even after the historic developments in the peace process, the Special Committee concluded that the general situation of human rights in Occupied Palestinian Territory remained very serious and had actually deteriorated in many respects, in particular as a result of Israel\u2019s settlement policies (see A\/49\/511, paras. 689 and 690; A\/50\/463, para. 712; A\/51\/99\/Add.2, para. 782; and A\/52\/131\/Add.2, paras. 580 and 581).<\/p>\n Since 1994, the Special Committee found that the situation has deteriorated even further as a result of Israel\u2019s closure policy; expropriation of land; settler violence; the large number of Palestinian prisoners remaining in Israeli detention and the deterioration of the conditions of their detention; and the increasingly harsh methods, amounting to torture, used by Israeli interrogators of persons suspected of having committed security offences (see A\/50\/463, para. 712).<\/p>\n Moreover, from 1998 to 2000, the Special Committee determined that Israel had instituted a comprehensive and elaborate system of laws, regulations and administrative measures affecting all aspects of the lives of the Palestinian people under occupation. This system was regarded as vesting in Israeli officials a broad degree of authority over the lives of the people of the occupied territories. Combined with the sense of great tension in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly during periods of crisis, the rigorous implementation of this Israeli system of laws, regulations and administrative measures created a sense of fear and despondency among Palestinians. The Special Committee repeatedly found that the Palestinians\u2019 bitterness at their treatment by the occupying Power and their sense of dispossession, hopelessness and despair \u2212 caused to a large extent by lack of progress in and tangible benefits from the peace process \u2212 created a situation of greatest urgency on the ground (see A\/53\/661, paras. 176-180; and A\/55\/453, paras. 33 and 131-133).<\/p>\n \n\n\nFocus: Israel\u2019s obligations under ratified international human rights instruments<\/strong>
\nIn the early 1990s, five international human rights instruments ratified by Israel entered into force: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, on 2 November 1991; as well as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on 3 January 1992. Whereas Israel\u2019s reporting obligations gradually began to be fulfilled under the instruments, on the ground human rights violations against the Palestinians continued. For instance, the Committee against Torture concluded that certain interrogation methods used by Israel amounted to torture and called for an immediate cessation of these practices (see CAT\/C\/SR.297\/Add.1 and A\/49\/511, para. 750). This issue was also addressed by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture and by the Commission itself.\u00a053<\/u>\/\u00a0 On the subject of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reaffirmed its position of principle that, since Israel was a party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee was competent to examine the manner in which Israel was fulfilling its obligations under the Convention with respect to everyone falling under the jurisdiction of Israel including all persons living in the territories occupied by Israel\u201d (see A\/49\/18, para. 83).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nAs a result of outbreak of violence in September 2000, the General Assembly, in its resolution 55\/133, entitled \u201cIsraeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem\u201d called for a temporary international or foreign presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the safety and protection of the Palestinian people; condemned Israel\u2019s excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians and demanded that Israel cease all actions that violate Palestinian human rights; stressed\u00a0<\/em>the need to guarantee the freedom of movement of persons and goods within the Palestinian territory, including the removal of restrictions on movement into and from East Jerusalem, and the freedom of movement to and from the outside world; and, called upon Israel to release the remaining Palestinian prisoners.<\/p>\nOn its part, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions condemning Israeli violations of human rights. During the first intifada, the Commission considered that many of Israel\u2019s violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention were \u201cwar crimes under international law\u201d and condemned Israel for these gross violations (see, e.g., Commission on Human Rights resolution 1989\/2 A. The Commission reaffirmed that the systematic and persistent practices of Israel, the occupying Power, as reflected in the killing of Palestinians, including children; the breaking of bones; the subjection of towns, villages and refugee camps to living conditions intended to destroy their inhabitants through the imposition of curfews and military siege; the throwing of gas bombs into houses, mosques and hospitals; and the savage beatings and maltreatment of pregnant women constituted serious violations of the principles of international law, human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission, in its resolutions 1989\/2 A-B, also condemned Israel for the obstruction of the education of thousands of students and pupils; the use of collective punishment; the ill-treatment and torture of large numbers of Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons; and the deportation and expulsion of Palestinians.\u00a054<\/u>\/<\/p>\n Although the peace process arrangements made in the 1990s brought palatable relief to Palestinians under occupation by freeing them from direct, day-to-day contact with Israeli soldiers, the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territory continued to suffer from serious human rights violations by Israel and Israeli settlers, even prior to the uprising of September 2000. The Commission on Human Rights consistently condemned these violations. In its resolution 2000\/6, entitled \u201cQuestion of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine,\u201d the Commission condemned the continuation of acts of wounding and killing perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinians, the detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial, the continuation of the confiscation of Palestinian lands, the extension and the establishment of Israeli settlements thereon, the confiscation of Palestinian property and expropriation of their land, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of fruit trees, and called upon Israel to cease immediately these acts, which constituted grave violations of human rights and of the principles of international law and also constituted a major obstacle in the way of the peace process. The Commission also condemned the expropriation of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, the revocation of identity cards of the citizens of the Palestinian city of Jerusalem, the imposition of fabricated and exorbitant taxes with the aim of forcing the Palestinians out of Jerusalem, and called upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to these practices. The Commission also singled out and condemned the use of torture against Palestinians during interrogation, as it constituted a grave breach of the principles of international humanitarian law and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and called upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to the use of such practices (see E\/CN.4\/RES\/2000\/6).<\/p>\n In its resolution 1993\/2 A of 19 February 1993, the Commission on Human Rights mandated a Special Rapporteur to investigate Israel\u2019s violations of international law, international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and to report to the Commission until the Israeli occupation of those territories ended. On 13 September 1993, the Chairman of the Commission appointed the first Special Rapporteur, who presented the initial report examining the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in February 1994 (E\/CN.4\/1994\/14). Several additional such reports would follow (e.g., E\/CN.4\/2000\/25); Israel did not always cooperate with these efforts.<\/p>\n In response to the acute situation that developed in September 2000 into the second intifada, addressed below, from 11 to 15 October 2000 the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission to the region. At the subsequent special session of the Commission, the Special Rapporteur presented his findings. In general, instances of the full range of human rights violations reported in the Special Rapporteur\u2019s previous report continued (ibid.). Some of these violations showed a dramatic upsurge since late September 2000 (see E\/CN.4\/S-5\/3, paras. 1-5). The Special Rapporteur offered several recommendations for urgent action: (a) the establishment of an ombudsman-type mechanism to process complaints; (b) the establishment of an observer and\/or guarantor body that, by its very presence and neutrality, would serve to build up a sense of security and confidence on both sides; and (c) the establishment of a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the ongoing crisis, the importance of which was stressed by the Security Council in its resolution 1322 (2000) (ibid., para. 35).<\/p>\n The Commission on Human Rights held its fifth special session from 17 to 19 October 2000. After failing to agree on a consensual text, on 19 October, the Commission adopted resolution S-5\/1, by a vote of 19 in favour to 16 against, with 17 abstentions. In the resolution, the Commission condemned the grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel; called for the establishment of a human rights inquiry commission to look into the violence; and called upon the High Commissioner to undertake urgently a visit to the region. In addition, the Commission requested the special rapporteurs concerned with such issues as extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, torture, violence against women, religious intolerance and racism, to carry out immediate missions to the occupied Palestinian territories and to report their findings to the Commission at its next session and, on an interim basis, to the General Assembly at its current session. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Representative of the Secretary-General for Internally Displaced Persons were also among those requested to carry out missions to the Occupied Territory.\u00a055<\/u>\/<\/p>\n Heeding the Commission\u2019s call, from 8 to 16 November 2000 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, undertook an urgent visit to assess the violations of the human rights of the Palestinians by Israel. On 29 November 2000, the High Commissioner reported on her visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel, Egypt and Jordan.\u00a056<\/u>\/\u00a0In the report, the High Commissioner states the following with respect to the question of protection of Palestinian civilians:<\/p>\n\u201cMindful of the urgent and widespread calls for international protection made to her during her visit to the occupied territories, the High Commissioner believes that every effort should be made to explore the feasibility of establishing an international monitoring presence.\u201d<\/ul>\nOn 19 December 2000, the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights appointed three eminent persons to the human rights inquiry commission established pursuant to resolution S-5\/1, endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its decision 2000\/311 on 22 November. The inquiry commission was expected to complement the various efforts being undertaken towards establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East by contributing to the cause of promotion and protection of human rights. The commission, having visited the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel from 10 to 18 February 2001, called for the immediate establishment of an \u201cadequate and effective\u201d international presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, saying it was beyond dispute that Israeli security forces had used \u201cexcessive and disproportionate force\u201d (see E\/CN.4\/2001\/121).
\nJ.<\/strong>Second intifada<\/strong>Confrontations between Israeli occupying forces and Palestinians in East Jerusalem following a visit to the Al-Haram Al-Sharif by the then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon, accompanied by a group of Likud Knesset members and hundreds of Israeli soldiers and police, led to bloodshed at the end of September 2000. Violence quickly engulfed the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and, for the first time since the late 1940s, emerged in towns in Israel, with over a dozen Palestinians shot dead there in the first days of the uprising.\u00a057<\/u>\/\u00a0According to Palestinian sources, by the end of 2000, over 320 Palestinians had lost their lives (see A\/ES-10\/54-S\/2001\/17). This second uprising in less than 10 years was soon known as the Al-Aqsa intifada or second intifada. The international community, including the Security Council, condemned Israel\u2019s excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians.<\/p>\nOn 13 February 2001, the United Nations Special Coordinator, Terje R\u00f8d-Larsen, summarized findings in a report on the social and economic impact of the increasingly violent conflict. Based on the report, the Palestinian economy had lost an estimated $900 million in gross domestic product (GDP) since the onset of the crisis, and labour income losses of more than $240 million. The total loss was estimated at $1,150 million, or 20 per cent of the projected GDP for 2000, each day involving an additional $8.6 million in losses. Moreover, infrastructure damage, the cost of caring for over 11,000 injured Palestinians, fiscal losses and other effects of the closures, caused losses of additional hundreds of millions of United States dollars.\u00a058<\/u>\/<\/p>\n The economic decline was exacerbated by the decision of the Government of Israeli to stop the transfer of tax and customs revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority under the Paris Protocol of 1994 (see A\/49\/180-S\/1994\/727). These revenues were equivalent to almost two thirds of the total revenue of the Palestinian Authority in 1999 and 2000. The loss of revenue was offset partially by increased assistance by the Arab countries and the European Union (see also chap. IV.B below).\u00a059<\/u>\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n| Focus: Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People emergency assistance<\/strong>In response to the deteriorating situation on the ground in late 2000, the Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP shifted focus to emergency projects, while trying also to maintain its ongoing development activities. The Programme\u2019s initial allocation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP resources in the region of $1.2 million was increased in the following weeks by contributions from Japan, Sweden and Norway, so that a total of $6.6 million was mobilized and partially disbursed during the three months from October to December. Approximately $1.3 million was allocated for emergency support to the health sector, which was facing the enormous challenge of caring for the thousands of physically and psychologically wounded. The remaining $5.3 million was used for emergency job creation projects designed to ameliorate the disastrous economic consequences of job and income losses resulting from Israel\u2019s various restrictions on the movement of Palestinian workers.\u00a060<\/u>\/<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n From the very beginning of the second intifada, in September 2000, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People appealed for the protection of the Palestinian people suffering under Israeli occupation. In his letter of 2 October 2000 addressed to the Secretary-General (A\/55\/440-S\/2000\/936), the Chairman of the Committee, appealed to all parties concerned to compel Israel to abide by its commitments under the Fourth Geneva Convention and to ensure international protection of the Palestinian people. He continued:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Committee is of the view that the events of the past several days are a direct result of the policies and practices of the Israeli occupation. To this day, Israel has continued to violate its obligations under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention), and the provisions of dozens of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Our Committee has warned on a number of occasions that Israel\u2019s failure to live up to those principles, as well as the continued lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, would allow despair and frustration to set in, putting the peace process in considerable jeopardy and leading to increased volatility on the ground.\u201d<\/ul>\nMoreover, as reflected in its annual report issued in 2000 (A\/55\/35, para. 18), the Committee was greatly disturbed by the excessive force used by Israel against the Palestinian protesters, including rubber-coated metal bullets, live ammunition, tanks and armoured personnel carriers, combat helicopters, anti-tank rockets and grenades. The Committee was shocked by the tragic loss of life as a result of these confrontations, in particular by the deaths of Palestinian children. It reiterated that these events were a direct result of the Israeli occupation and the failure of Israel to respect its obligations under international law. The Committee firmly believed that Israel\u2019s continued refusal to live up to those principles, as well as the continued lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, would allow despair and frustration to set in, put the peace process in considerable jeopardy and lead to increased volatility on the ground.<\/p>\n On its part, the Security Council was convened in October, November and December 2000 to take action on the critical situation. On 7 October, the Council, following three days of debate in which more than 40 speakers addressed it, adopted resolution 1322 (2000) by 14 votes in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States) in which the Council condemned violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. In the resolution, the Council deplored the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif, and subsequent violence there and throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events.<\/p>\n Subsequently, in response to a question asked during a press conference on 7 November 2000, the Secretary-General stated that the consent and cooperation of both parties were required for the successful deployment of an international protection force. As the Government of Israel had made it clear that it would not cooperate, he did not see how such a force could be deployed (see SG\/SM\/7617). The same day, the Secretary-General warmly welcomed the appointment by President Clinton of a fact-finding committee, established in accordance with the understandings reached at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in September 1999.\u00a061<\/u>\/\u00a0As agreed, the Secretary-General was closely involved in the consultations on the composition of the committee that was to be chaired by former United States Senator George J. Mitchell.<\/p>\n On 22 November 2000, during a meeting of the Security Council, Palestine called for specific measures to end Israeli violations against the Palestinian people, and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries called upon the Council to seriously consider the immediate deployment of a protection force to the region. The European Union supported the Secretary-General\u2019s endeavours to explore with the parties the terms and conditions of the deployment of an observer mission, in accordance with the mandate given to him by the Security Council a few days earlier (see S\/PV.4231).<\/p>\n On 18 December 2000, the Security Council met to consider a draft resolution (S\/2000\/1171) on establishing a United Nations force in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the draft resolution, the Council stressed the need for measures to ensure the protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation and expressed the Council\u2019s determination to dispatch a United Nations force of military and police observers throughout the occupied territories to contribute to the implementation of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreements, the cessation of violence and the safety and security of Palestinian civilians. The Council also requested the Secretary-General to consult both sides on the composition, modalities of deployment and functioning of such a force. However, the draft resolution did not receive the necessary majority of nine votes: 8 votes were cast in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the General Assembly had expressed deep concern about the provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif in East Jerusalem and the ensuing violence. The Assembly resumed its tenth emergency special session and was briefed by the Secretary-General on the latest developments and his personal peace efforts leading up to the Middle East Peace Summit held at Sharm el-Sheikh a few days earlier. On 20 October 2000, the Assembly adopted resolution ES-10\/7 entitled \u201cIllegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory\u201d. The resolution stated, in part:
\n\u201cThe General Assembly<\/em><\/p>\n\n- \n
,<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n \n- \n
\u201c1.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nCondemns<\/em><\/p>\n\n- \n
the violence that took place on 28 September 2000 and the following days at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places in Jerusalem as well as other areas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, resulting in the deaths of over 100 people, the vast majority of whom were Palestinian civilians, and many other casualties;<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n | | |